On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:31:45AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/03/17 11:29, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 05:26:07AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 17.03.17 at 12:14, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> >>> @@ -3537,7 +3537,7 @@ static void nmi_hwdom_report(unsigned int
> >>> reason_idx)
> >>> {
> >>> struct domain *d = hardware_domain;
> >>>
> >>> - if ( !d || !d->vcpu || !d->vcpu[0] || !is_pv_domain(d) /* PVH fixme
> >>> */ )
> >>> + if ( !d || !d->vcpu || !d->vcpu[0] || !is_pv_domain(d) )
> >>> return;
> >> But why would you remove the comment then? This needs fixing,
> >> after all.
> >>
> > Isn't PVHv2 going to use the native path? Now that there is no PVHv1,
> > what is there to fix?
>
> The native "inject an NMI" path still needs wiring into this codepath.
> The reason it wasn't done for PVHv1 was because we don't have a suitable
> native path yet, iirc.
>
OK, in that case dropping this patch is the most appropriate action.
Wei.
> ~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
